Posted
by
timothy
on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @04:33PM
from the acta-ing-up-up-there dept.

whisper_jeff writes "News has come out that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning on bringing the DMCA to Canada. As a Canadian, this disgusts me. Watching Harper sell out Canadians in favour of US lobby groups is an affront. I am hopeful that enough Canadians write to Harper and their MPs to voice their disapproval of this effort."

As a Canadian I am usually pretty nonviolent. But I have had enough of this asshole! Would somebody please take a stab at Harper?
He does not represent me, or anyone I know.
I think it is time for a revolution.

It's got to suck to see all of those "Canada is a US state/protectorate/pawn" digs gain traction, eh?

I'm surprised this hasn't become a huge political liability for him. Wouldn't it take just one commercial showing how he bends the country over for his "American corporate masters" to get him out of office?

Canada, you're supposed to be the sane one in this relationship. Don't make us hit you.

It's got to suck to see all of those "Canada is a US state/protectorate/pawn" digs gain traction, eh?

Alarmingly, this current government is single-hand-edly the most sycophantic and leg-humping I recall in my lifetime when it comes to following US interests.

I'm surprised this hasn't become a huge political liability for him. Wouldn't it take just one commercial showing how he bends the country over for his "American corporate masters" to get him out of office?

Since you have a British-style parliament, aren't you able to do things like votes of no confidence to get rid of a PM (or any MP, for that matter)? That's a far sight better than what most of the U.S. states have -- wait for the term to expire and hope like hell you can get another candidate with better name recognition on the ballot.

Canada already has a minority government and the alternative, a Liberal government, would be no better. Canadians already know this and this why the Tories they have been elected multiple times. The last time the Libs threatened a vote of no confidence they dropped in the polls to a near-record low. Canadians are sick of expensive elections too close together, and minority governments that only last six months.

If anybody actually thinks that putting the Liberals in power will really change anything, they are just fooling themselves. They would just cripple the armed forces then end up doing exactly the same thing the Tories are doing now with copyright law.

I am not advocating a change of government. I firmly believe that a minority government, such as we have now, at least prevents anyone from really fucking things up. Personally I advocate throwing the party leaders out on their collective asses. Lord knows they have proven time and time again they they can not work or play well with others.

I can not think of one that would be out of place working on a seedy used car lot.

Since you have a British-style parliament, aren't you able to do things like votes of no confidence to get rid of a PM (or any MP, for that matter)?

No confidence would bring down the government. Then there would be an election, and because the left is split and Canadians collectively are too daft to vote strategically, even though the Conservatives only have 34% support last poll I looked at, they'd still get the most votes and we'd be right back where we are now.

What's required isn't a revolution, but a coalition such as that proposed after the last election. But the Liberals backed down. It's not difficult to see why they are so unpopular. A coal

And what politician in their right mind would want to have an election over copyright law?

Unless they make it a vote of confidence that is not required. Simply defeating a proposed law does not mean that the government has lost the confidence of the house....and if they turn it into a confidence motion then there is the risk it will blow up in their faces. All it would need is the libs and NDP to vote against it and no law plus no election.

I have to agree. As a west coaster I have been generally displeased with pretty much all government we've had to date (they tend to favour the political views of Ontario and Quebec), but I honestly hate Harper. It goes beyond his ridiculous policies. He is not very Canadian.

Of course I don't even like the way the guy looks, what with his beady little eyes and blank stare. Did you see footage of him at the 2010 Olympics? The guy had no emotion displayed on his face whatsoever. At least Gordon Campbell, the

From a Displaced BC native living in Oregon,Much the same as how in the US the political views in the northeastern states (and around Washington, DC) are different than the political views are in Washington state and Oregon. It is a differing view of the country, really. I have met and talked to many back east that have an attitude that Oregon is still 'the Wild West'. The view of BC/Alberta from Quebec and Ontario echoes that sentiment.Also, there is different emphasis on political platforms. While Universal Healthcare is most important in some places, the economy is WAY more important in Oregon (high unemployment). Environmental concerns are higher in the West (probably because we still have lots more open, untapped space than the tightly knit cities and states on the Eastern seaboard). The western states also seem to be a little more liberal than their eastern counterparts, where all the money/power/large corporations seem to be centered.

The concerns of the regions are very different but the area around Ontario and Quebec has the population to make the majority. BC's economy is resource based (forestry mainly) while Ontario is primarily Manufacturing. That difference alone means huge differences in how policies are viewed.

The west has traditionally been more liberal in general political viewpoints (the stereotype would be that west coasters are pot smoking hippies). The west also has a larger focus on environment (not a

I don't think anyone will disagree that the gun registry was a huge flop. Poorly planned, poorly executed and half baked to begin with. The benefits of a gun registry are of course debatable.

The digital rights issues are of course a concern, but more is what has led to them: a government that panders to american politics, policies and worst of all american lobbyists (it's bad enough having to worry about our own lobby groups).

Another huge irk is when the conservatives brought up same sex marriage. We already did that one and decided on equal rights. Canada is supposed to be progressive and diverse (of course what do you expect from a group that calls themselve conservatives). In my experience Canada has been extremely good at recognizing the diversity of its citizens and making sure we all have equal rights (regardless of ethnicity, religion or even sexual orientation). In light of that the action of the Conservative party appears very un-canadian.

We definitely need more people out voting and we need the smaller parties to get more traction (such as the Green party, which is basically a throw away vote at this time). Don't even get me started on the provincial government and the HST they are shoving down our throats. Yes, we may need more tax revenue, but the way they went about it was all wrong.

Poorly executed, perhaps but it was a good idea. And it has broad support from the cops and emergency physicians.But, they were too namby-pamby about it and a lot of the cost was from folks who were very much against it gettingin the way.If they'd had real balls, they could have gotten it done more quickly and cheaply but since the money was spentand the registry built, it would be a huge waste to dismantle it now.

I keep wishing the Pirate Party would find another name, something that appeals to voters over the age of 35. We understand what the Pirate Party is about, but I fear most people, particularly older people, wouldn't get it.

Perhaps call it the "Share Party" or "Sharing Party". Or maybe the "Library Party", or some mashup of "library" and "libre". Or even the "Public Party", but that last is too generic. "Share" seems the best term. "Library" might be too narrow to be seen as an important issue. Don't

As another non-violent (usually) Canadian, I welcome this opportunity to tell my MP's that if they vote for this piece of monkey poo, I will do whatever I can to make sure they are never elected again.

You had your chance back in '76 (1776, that is). On the other hand, had you revolted back then, you probably wouldn't have decent public health care and you'd probably have your capital in D.C., so maybe it's for the better.

You know what? Harper only represents two groups:1) the members of his riding2) the members of his caucus

Canada isn't the US -- we don't elect the Prime Minister; the other Ministers do. Until they elect him, he only represents his local riding.

What this means though, is that if enough elected representatives feel he has to go, they can get rid of him. So, if enough Canadians contact their representatives letting them know that this is the will of the people, they'll get rid of him and elect someone else t

You know what? Harper only represents one group:1) The party of which he is a member.

That is all. Parliament is centred around the party system. It's nice to think he's in Parliament to represent his constituents, but it's the Party and it's policies that matter. Read the Constitution.

"Canada isn't the US -- we don't elect the Prime Minister; the other Ministers do."

*Bzzzzzt*. Again, members of the party elect a leader, not ministers of Parliament (although as members

Can you think of a country where the leader genuinely does nowadays? Governments stopped serving the people years ago. Give yourself a couple years after any replacement and you'll feel the exact same way, even if you voted them in.

It's not the public figure you're really angry with though, it's the ones pulling its strings. And guess what, you can't vote those in or out of where they stand. You honestly think Harper has any deep ideological views towards copyrights? He's just doing what he'll gain most from on a personal level.

You want things to change, shine a light on them like Michael Geist is doing. That's a principle you can apply to just about everything that's wrong with the way we are governed too.

And then what? install Ignatieff as our new dictator? Layton's defence of keeping info free is admirable but he is out of touch with reality on so many other fronts as to be unelectable. Duceppe only has aspirations to lead Quebec..right out of Canada. Liz May? First she has to get a Green MP a seat. Then she might have a the chance a snowball has in hell to affect change.

The root of the problem is not HArper. It is thos who do not vote, and perhaps even worse, those who make ill-informed voting choic

The Prime Minister is not elected directly, he's simply the head of the party that got the most seats.

Currently the Conservatives are the government, but they don't hold a majority of seats in the house of Commons, so to get anything passed they need to convince at least some representatives of the other parties that it's a good idea.

The Conservatives were largely elected because of a happen-stance of how electoral boundaries are drawn. For instance, I myself live in the city but my electoral district incl

The Prime Minister is not elected directly, he's simply the head of the party that got the most seats.

To clarify further, the prime minister can actually be any person at all (it's constitutionally questionable whether the prime minister even need be a Canadian citizen over 18 years of age). The Canadian system of government is very different from the American system, and few Canadians know how our system actually works (thanks to bombardment of American media and their electoral system).

As an American, visiting Canada, I was surprised by how many DON'T say 'eh?' It seems to be of French Canadian origin and used by adults, around retirement age. I spoke to a lot of people, and even went to on of the biggest malls in the world (the mall in Edmonton) and never did I hear 'eh?'

Also, the usage seems to be only when they are asking for permission to continue, when they have [pre]supposed a fact and they expect the answer to be in the affirmative. Any time there was a legitimate question, it was

The effect is called Canadian raising [wikipedia.org]. It's partially dependent on the listener. Someone who speaks in the same manner (other Canadians, people from the northwest states and New England, some Brits) will hear it as "abowt" as normal, whereas someone who speaks it differently may hear it as "aboat" or "aboot".

I'm quite disgusted also. I've been emailing the office of the prime minister for over two months in regards to the ACTA. It is quite pathetic they cannot even take the time to address an issue in the active public eye. Even a generic spin would be nice. All I've been asking for is some information on the stance of my own government.

We as Canadians should lobby. This is a disgust that the Harper government is not taking into account the will of the people whatsoever.

All I've been asking for is some information on the stance of my own government.

What we're witnessing, I fear, is the broadcast model of government: You and your country's wealth are the product, to be sold to the highest bidding corporation(s). We've had this system in the USA for quite some time, and it's been great for the Corporations.

What we're witnessing, I fear, is the broadcast model of government: You and your country's wealth are the product, to be sold to the highest bidding corporation(s). We've had this system in the USA for quite some time, and it's been great for the Corporations.

That's why it's my honor to introduce, for the first time, and probably, last time here on/.... "The Corporation"... An organization funded by Americans for Americans that will lobby, bribe, steal and rape for each and every shareholder of our Corporation. For a small quad-monthly fee of $150,000 US you too can have your very own army of high price yes men, lawyers and what power elite's package would truly be complete without the blackjack tables and those wonderful high price escorts!

Ok, looking at what the US DMCA has done, can you really say its improved the US in any way? Lets see here, thanks to the DMCA we now have judges wasting their time on victimless crimes, record companies still screwing artists and a rush of high-tech jobs out of the US.

The DMCA hinders education, harms jobs and makes developing in China and India even better. Why Canada would even consider such a terrible piece of legislation is beyond me.

Considering we have strict copyright laws already in existence and a levy system on most blank media. This is stupid, idiotic, and removes the right that you "own" a device. And I'm a member of the CPC who votes at delegate conventions. I guess it's physical letter writing time to my MP and others again, along with some other things.

> This is stupid, idiotic, and removes the right that you "own" a device.

Exactly!

The harder they try to crack down on copyright infringement, the more they illustrate that so called "intellectual property [cat-v.org]" is inherently incompatible with real physical property.

The US is paying an extremely heavy price for the DMCA, and instead of fixing things it now wants to pull everyone down into the same nightmare, and now Canada is willfully following down that same path:(

Canada has always fascinated me. If Americans were to close his/her eyes then open them when in Canada, they would not notice that much of a difference. Exceptions would be in the currency and the way they spell some of their words like "neighbour".

But on a serious note, none of the big tech companies in the USA launch their products across the border.

Heck, setting up an online store to charge Canadians the full price of say the HTC Incredible would not hurt the vendor. All costs/risks etc could be met by t

"Canada has always fascinated me. If Americans were to close his/her eyes then open them when in Canada, they would not notice that much of a difference. Exceptions would be in the currency and the way they spell some of their words like "neighbour"."

Yeah..but if you go up there and and say publicly that "I think [insert racial, sexual orientation, etc type slang] suck" and you can actually get busted for "hate speech".

Obviously, the right to publicly hate on minorities (or majorities) is totally awesome!

Yes, actually, it is. Now that doesn't mean actually doing it is awesome, or that I in any way agree with doing such a thing. In fact, most people find such speech highly offensive (and that includes many who are not members of the minority in question).

However, it means I can also say things, without worrying if people find them offensive. I can say "Religions are fairy tales for adults" or "The last president was a sack of shit and this one's only marginally better if at all" or "I wish all corporations larger than a certain size would be broken up". I cannot be prosecuted for saying any of those things, even though there are people who will strongly dislike each of those statements.

In exchange for that right, I'll gladly accept a few idiots wearing their white hoods and going around spouting crap. If anything, that educates the public on just how ridiculous and ignorant those people are. And a lot of people exercise the right they do have in that scenario-to point out just how stupid it is.

We get idiots going around in white hoods, burning crosses, and spouting all kinds of crap, in other words exercising their free speech. What they can't do is do it right in front of some black folks home.

...Canadians love free speech as much as anyone. It's even enshrined in their constitution.

actually, in Canada, its not "free speech" its "free expression",2. "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"so it sounds even more powerful than the American 1st amendment...we can express ourselves freely across any medium.

but then their are the weasel words from section 1 that take all the teeth right out of that statement:"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaran

Yeah..but if you go up there and and say publicly that "I think [insert racial, sexual orientation, etc type slang] suck" and you can actually get busted for "hate speech".

No you can't.

Hate speech requires that you make actual threats against a given group. In fact, even saying 'All ${FOO}s should die!' isn't enough to get you busted. It has to be clear that you are actually advocating for their collective demise. You could even say, 'I'm going to kill that ${FOO} right now!' and not be guilty of hate speech, because your hatred was aimed at an individual whom you incidentally were calling names.

But way, way before you get to the point of being arrested, you'll be shunned for being the bigot that you are, if you don't get punched in the face for your efforts. See, we Canadians value free speech so much that we try[*] to be polite and respectful when we use it.

If you want to be a know-nothing, racist fuckwit in Canada, you can. But it'll be a pretty lonely existence.

I think it is mostly due to laziness on the part of American businesses and the administrative headache of dealing with different country-level regulations.

There are two markets for the American MBA: America, and not-America. When your average PHB looks at the potential money to be made in Canada selling products/services, he looks at it as going through a whole lot of effort to gain an (English-speaking) market a bit bigger than Texas (Quebec brings Canada's population up to 34m, but adding another lan

>> and the way they spell some of their words like "neighbour"....and what makes you incorrectly presume that the US is the reference authority of the English language? Actually its the US that is the odd country out when it comes to spelling English words properly.

and the way they spell some of their words like "neighbour"....and what makes you incorrectly presume that the US is the reference authority of the English language?

Where did GP claim the U.S. to be the "reference authority"? He merely remarked that Canada does things differently (though in practice, I do see a lot of American spelling here).

In any case, there's no single standard for English, so arguing which one is "more right" is, frankly, moronic (though reading the talk pages on Wikipedia on articles such as aluminum/aluminium can be a lot of fun!).

If Americans were to close his/her eyes then open them when in Canada, they would not notice that much of a difference. Exceptions would be in the currency and the way they spell some of their words like "neighbour".

I don't know what the heck you're trying to say about "HTC Incredible" full price. The Incredible isn't available in Canada because nobody is selling it here yet. HTC has to choose to open the retail chain supply for Canada, Google has to bless their part of the deal which is the apps / market, a store has to be compelled to actually carry the phone, and buyers have to be compelled to buy them. On top of that there's the fed who can hold up any device from being used (aka sold) in Canada if the device was n

Actually, there are many barriers to entry into the Canadian marketplace. Taxes, ownership restrictions, tariffs, operational regulations, etc. are all important considerations. In fact, for many products and services, entry into the Canadian marketplace faces more barriers than many other EU or Asian countries.

One of the first and most restrictive factors is the ownership and management restrictions. Take the wireless industry for example. A wireless carrier has to have at least 50% Canadian ownership in order to operate in Canada. This means that T-Mobile, for example, can't just waddle over across the border and start buying frequency, putting up towers, and offering a service. We've had a recent case where it was debated whether or not a certain wireless carrier (Wind Mobile [wikipedia.org]) actually met that ownership requirement. There's also a general requirement for all corporations that the Board of Directors is comprised of at least 25% Canadians (or a minimum of 1 Canadian if the Board has less than 4 Directors).

Many of our industries are much more tightly regulated than are your industries. As I've briefly mentioned [slashdot.org] in a previous comment, Canada really is more of a socialist country with a market framework. The skeletal infrastructure of our economy is based on market economics, but we flesh that out with quite a heavy load (comparative to America) of social regulations that protect consumers from power asymmetry that arises from market failure, e.g., information asymmetry, natural monopolies,etc..

Many of these regulations are restrictive enough such that a company may consider that an investment in complying with such regulations would not really be worth it for a shot at the comparatively smaller marketplace. Since American companies design products and their respective distribution plans with American regulations in mind, it would take a significant investment to create another roll-out plan for the Canadian marketplace. We only have 30-odd million people, 1/10 of the American population, and our buying power for non-essential items is generally lower because of the way our consumption taxes are structured*.

On the one hand, we don't get many of the new and sparkly fancy gadgets right away. But that's okay, I'm pretty patient for the most part. It's not that big of a deal. Companies big and successful enough will eventually bring their products over the border. On the other hand, we as consumers and taxpayers are protected from many of the perils that arise from market failure. The biggest recent example is the global financial crisis. While many global banks and companies required bailouts, our financial institutions continued to post modest profits and showed a remarkable ability [theglobeandmail.com] to quickly recover [reuters.com].

So yeah, there are many barriers to entry into the Canadian marketplace, mostly because of our traditional approach towards market economics that's more skewed towards the socialist side. But even though we may not get the latest cool gadgets or the cheapest deals, we're very well protected from many potential disasters that result from market failure. I wouldn't really call this a fault. I'm a patient guy. I can wait 3 more months for that iPad, or another 6 months for that HTC phone. Small price to pay, in my book.

* It's worth noting that our minimum wage is higher than in America, the last time I checked. The general minimum wage is $10.25 an hour in Ontario, and the average is over $9 across Canada (with only 2 provinces falling below $8.50). However, there are a few factors that influence buying power. The first is that non-essential items are almost always taxed higher throughout Canada. For example, groceries, utilities, etc. are exempt from the federal consumption tax. Alcoh

I became aware of this while reading Michael Geist's blog this morning (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/) - a good resource for information about copyright law, privacy matters and so forth. I'm in the process of composing a letter to my MP right now, and I encourage all of the Canadians here to follow suit. Only by voicing your concerns can you be an agent of change.

It's unlikely to do any good lobbying Harper. Harper's unfulfilled dream is to be President of the U.S.A. He's as much big business, especially big oil business, as any American President could be. Further Harper's modus operandi demands he serve the wishes of the copyright lobby. His use of the media to cast his opponents in the worst possible light is his guiding star as a politician. He's a consummate sophist, seemingly utterly without any philosophy, other than to win and hold onto power. He has done cameos in various popular TV shows in slick, self deprecating clips. A politician who relies as heavily on superficial, mass media self promotion as does Harper will cut a wink 'n nod, tacit deal with big media companies. I think it's critically important to note the heavy use politicians in all countries make of mass media to further their political agendas. In the U.S.A. a loop is closing around the American citizenry. Big government, the military industrial complex and big, mass media corporations comprise an unholy trinity. In Canada the military industrial complex is missing but the possible crippling of the rights of individual citizens remains as much of a threat as corporations are given greater entitlements while being able to shield themselves from just punishments for their wrong doings. Two main problems come from the need to create jobs and compete internationally. Politicians need job creation programmes to bring home the bacon to their constituents and big business can deliver massive job creation programmes as well as threaten massive job losses. Further the majority of advanced, industrialized countries seemed to have opted for promoting mega corporations as a new, privileged class akin to medieval knights whose resources better ensure successful international competition.

The DMCA DRM provisions are pernicious (though not as powerful as most here seem to believe). The DMCA "Safe Harbor" provisions are not. Takedowns would exist without them. However, without "Safe Harbor" they would not have to follow a prescribed form, there would be no counter-takedown procedure, there would be no 30 day deadline for filing for infringement, and most important of all, service providers would be liable even if they complied with takedowns. The DMCA Safe Harbor does not expand the rights or powers of copyright owners in any way. On the contrary, it reduces them. Without the DMCA there would be no YouTube.

Unfortunately from what I have seen the DMCA-like statutes proposed in other countries seems to only expand the rights and powers of copyright owners without providing any additional protection for users. Don't let them pass. If that puts you in violation of TRIPS, tough. Withdraw from the damn thing: it's crap. If you must enact a local DMCA, at least make sure it goes no farther than the US one does (and insist that it create a fair use right if you don't already have one and does not reduce it if you do).

Unfortunately from what I have seen the DMCA-like statutes proposed in other countries seems to only expand the rights and powers of copyright owners without providing any additional protection for users. Don't let them pass. If that puts you in violation of TRIPS, tough. Withdraw from the damn thing: it's crap. If you must enact a local DMCA, at least make sure it goes no farther than the US one does (and insist that it create a fair use right if you don't already have one and does not reduce it if you do).

And most importantly, include some real penalties for misuse. The single largest (but by no means only) flaw in the U.S. DMCA is the fact that while those misusing it can *potentially* face charges of perjury, in reality there's no chance of anyone being prosecuted for doing so unless they are already on the shit list of a US Attorney.

The DMCA should have *civil* penalties for those who abuse it, so that those who are victimized by the abuse have a direct recourse, rather than having to rely on the governm

To the contact provided on this web link [pm.gc.ca] and I bet this will put a fat dent in it coming to fruition:

Mr. Harper,

Speaking as an American citizen, I'm glad you are selling out to our interests. I love having more slaves indebted to our system and YOU especially make a rather appropriate addition to our collection of sockpuppets with no real power or intelligence.

Harper is just a totalitarian freak, 99% of the last round of comments on Bill C-61 were against it in one way or another...http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ [michaelgeist.ca] has been awesome at covering this and not letting it all go under the carpet but he can't save Canada alone!

One of the most disgusting things about this situation is that assholes like Harper can just keep introducing DMCA-style laws over and over again. Didn't make it through the legislature? Too much public opposition? No problem! We'll give it 6 months then we'll just start all over again. Eventually they will succeed in sneaking it through, and once it's through it's pretty much there for good.